ML20214R650

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Comments on AR Abt Draft Rept, U Recovery Activities,Riprap Testing Rept - Phase 1. Rept Useful for Evaluation of Armored Embankments for U Tailings.Meeting Should Be Held to Discuss Points Covered in Review
ML20214R650
Person / Time
Issue date: 06/16/1986
From: Justus P
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To: Hawkins E
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
References
REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 8612080048
Download: ML20214R650 (8)
v • d • e


Text

ff.} .

I'

. DISTRIBUTION

    • ~ 59l sfg

~

e aWMGT rf

-URAP/RC/86/06 M R ro ing MBell ARI 18 W J08unting PSJustus U

MEMORANDUM FOR: Edward Hawkins, URF0 o n egel FROM: Philip Justus, Acting Chief WGT MRKnapp, WMLU

SUBJECT:

REVIEW 0F PHASE I RIPRAP TESTING REPORT Richard Codell and Ted Johnson have reviewed the draft report " Uranium Recovery Activities, Riprap Testing Report - Phase 1", by Steven R. Abt and others. Our detailed corrsents are enclosed.

The report presents irnportant field data on the riprap tests conducted at Colorado State University, and will be useful to the evaluation of armored embankments for uranium tailings. We have given the draft a thorough review and feel that a number of corrections and modifications should be trade before the report is issued. It should be carefully reviewed by a technical editor in order to correct numerous typographical and style errors. A glossary and symbols list should be added. There apparently several errors in the data reported in the tables. It is not c, . from the text that the correct data were actually used in the correlations.

Additionally, we are not convinced of the validity of several of the correlations which were derived for interstitial velocity and Manning's coefficient. We include in the comments a detailed workup of an alternative correlation study which could be incorporated into the report.

O We suggest that a meeting be held to discuss the points covered in our review.

Please contact Richard Codell (301-427-4558) or Ted Johnson (301-427_4490) if you have any further cuestions.

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY PHILIP S.JUSTUS Philip Justus, Acting Chief WMGT

[te WM Record fi!e WM Project _N _.

Docket No.

cc: Don Lee, ORNL PDR' /

g ] g 860616 '

.Dntrit !ution: __

WM-39 PDR I

_ __ d -

_(Return to WM,623-SS) p( , / _ y ~n. -- " '

)FC :WMGT :WMGT :WMGT  : WM  :  :  :

4.__:___ _

(AME :RCodell :TJoh q "n _ ____:MFlieg)e

: PS, s  ;
: YI

) ATE :86/CG//f :86/06//3 :86/06/ Q  : 86/06/4  :  :  :

URAR/RC/86/06/09/ ENCLOSURE -1, Comments on Environmental Assessment of Uranium Recovery Activities - Riprap Testing Report Phase I Reviewed by Richard Codell and Ted Johnson Hydrology Section, WMGT

1. Page 2, line 10 - The word "effect" rather than " affect" should be used here and several other in places in the text.
2. Page 8 - Coefficients Cu and Cz used in the text should be defined in the text. Notation should be consistent; e.g., Cu or C u , z or C7, in Table 2.1 and elsewhere.
3. Page 15, equation 3.2 - The coefficient 1.463 has not been derived, and could be a typo. It appears that the value should be 1.486.
4. Page 12, last line, The word " initiating" should be corrected.
5. Page 15 - Should the term be G3 or Gs?
6. Page 18 - A better definition for Vmax is needed.
7. Page 23 - The term d in equation 4.1 shcald be be O to be consistent with rest of text. Also, n should be n .

p The run numbers n this table are confusing since the same numbers apply O 8.

to both fiumes. The flume used should be noted for each run.

9. Page 27 - Since particulars of the Stephenson method were given, some background on the Safety factor method should also be given. Discuss how stress on the rocks was determined. Discuss whether the water depth was calculated, or if measured values were used.
10. Pege 78 - Consistent style for citations should be used. Also,

" Overtopping Riprap Flume Studies" should be included in the reference list.

11. Page 32 - Terms such as " uniformity coefficient" shculd be defined in the text if used there.
12. Page 29 - The word " interstitial" is misspelled.

i 13. page 29 - It may be appropriate to provide additional bases regarding the need for design conservatisms and their effect er costs of the

s URAR/RC/86/06/09/ ENCLOSURE _

embankments. Conservatisms are especially important when engineers must conclude that the designs are acceptable for 200 to 1000 years, especially in light of many unknowns such as flow concentration, rock durability, water-borne and wind-borne sediments, and other factors which are difficult to take into account.

It should be pointed out that the safety factor method is applicable to overtopping. The conclusion which states that "...the SF, BOR and COE procedures were not developed for applications to ove* topping flows...".

O is not totally correct. ead shouid be ciarified.

14. Page 30 - There is a major problem with some of the data in tables 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.7 and Appendices 2 and 3. For example, Run 6 is reported to have a 2.2 inch rock in Table 4.2, 4.3, 4.7 and Page 80, but 1.02 inches on pages 71 and 74. The slope S = 0.02 is used in Tables 4.2, 4.3 and 4.7, but S = 0.021 on page 80 and S = 0.01 on page 71, Table 4.4 and Table 4.5. Sicpe is reported in percent in some tables and as a decimal in others. Diameter and depth are reported in inches in some tables and feet in others. We are particularly worried that some erroneous data were used in the correlations.
15. Pages 30 to 32 - The report states on page 32 that the Leps equation is in good agreement with the CSU data for interstitial velocities on steep slopes, yet Fio. 4.4 does not show the data from Run 9 in Table 4.5. This experiment demonstrates a considerable lack of agreement with the Leps formula on a 90% slope. The conclusion should be reevaluated.
16. Page 34, Eq. 4.4 - 1he exponent 0.50 in this equation should be 0.54.
17. Page 36 - The exponent of S is 0.45 in equations 4.8 and 4.9, but 0.4 in Fig. 4.7. This should be corrected or clarified.
18. Were Froude number or Reynolds number used anywhere? If not, why do they appear? Why it Cs used in Table 4.6 but QTused in Table 4.7?
19. The term C in Table 4.6 should be defined.
20. Page 45 - The results of the comparison of measured Manning's "n" with the COE formula should be presented so that the areas of applicability can be deternired. Also, the word " meaningful" is misspelled and should be corrected.
21. Page 49, linc 8, The wording on this line should be "effect on".

URAR/RC/86/06/09/ ENCLOSURE

-3 .,

22. Page 56, line 8 - The wording on this line should be " Thicknesses ...

are".

23. Page 57, last line - The word "to" should be deleted.
24. Page 59 - The conclusions and recommendations presented in Chapter 5 should be structured in a more organized manner, and should be grouped according to the topic. Recomendations should be made where possible at the end of the grouping. For example, conclusions 1, 2, and 3 are all O related to rock sizin9, but there is no reco-eadatioa made. conciusions 4 and 5 are related to Manning's "n", with one recomendation made.
25. Page 61, line 16 - The word "for" should be used instead of "where compared to".
26. Page 62, reference 7 "MD" should be used instead of "MA."
27. Discuss why the filter rock for the 4.1 and 5.1 inch riprap is larger than that used for the 6.2 inch riprap. If this is actually the case, the dpparent discrepancy should be explained.
28. Page 74 - Discuss how the velocity for runs 06, 07 and 08, could be measured 4.5 inches below the surface if the rock layer is only 3 inches thick Discuss if velocity was measured in the filter layer.
29. Page 77 - Discuss the meaning of the multiple measurements in this table.

O The usefulness of these data could be improved with a little explanation.

30. General - A glossary and symbols list should be provided.

~

31. General - Tables and figures in the appendices should be numbered.
32. General - The depth of the rock cover is a very important measurement, since the frictional relaticosHps undergo a drastic change when the water level exceeds the level of the rock. It would be important, therefore, to coment on the unifornity of the rock in each experiment. Discuss if the thickness was measured to the top of the largest rocks or at some median level.
33. Page 32 - We disacree with your attempts to fit the data on flow resistance. The equations are dimensionally incorrect. Nearly all E formulas for frictional flow should show a dependency of V and q* on S or close to it. At the very least, S should have the same exponent for the l q* and V correlations, since they are directly proportional.

I 1

t URAR/RC/86/06/09/ ENCLOSURE

-4. .

Correlations of velocities and specific discharges for the slope experiments in the CSU report should be generated in terms of dimensionless variables. as an example, consider the case where the parameters of the system are V (or q*),

Cu ' "p' 3' 050, and g. The parameters C u ' "p and S are already dimensionless, and Z = V/(12 gD50)I is a diraensionless grouping of the other tems. A convenient arrangement of these terms would be to call Z the dependent variable and C u ' "p and S the independent variables:

Z = f(Cu ' S' "p) (I)

One possible equation of this fonn is:

b c d (2)

Z=aC y 3 np Taking the (natural) log of both sides of the equation gives:

Log Z = (Log a) (b(Log Cu ) + c(Log S) + d(Log np )) (3) which is a linear equation. Regression can be used to detennine the coefficients a, b, c, and d.

A multiple linear regression was perfonned for Eq. 3, using the data in Appendix 2 of the Draft report. The coefficients from this regression are:

a = 1.467 b = 0.461 c = -0.0737 d = 4.142 The exponent of S for the NRC analysis is about 0.46, which is close to the 0.5 predicted by e<amining most cther friction formulas. The correlation of the NRC equation with the data is shown in Fig.l. The results of the CSU correlation, Eq. 4.5, is alSo shown in Fig.1. These two regression formulas are nearly as good in terms of the standard error, Sr, The correlation of Z' = 12 q*/(12 D 50S )I, where 12 q* is substituted for V, was also performed. Tne coefficients of Eq.3 are:

a = 0.'F b = 0.4F'

i .

URAR/RC/86/06/09/ ENCLOSURE

-5. .

c = -0.942 d = 1.068 The exponent of S is also about 0.46 as would be expected, since q* is directly proportional to V. The correlation of the NRC equation for Z' with the data is shown in Fig.2. The correlation of the CSU regression, Eq. 4.8, with the data is also shown in Fig.2. The NRC regression is clearly better in terms of the 3

standard error, S2 Note that although the CSU equation is highly correlated t

( )) with the data (rr = 0.94), there is a significant error at higher values of Z'.

4

.O t

d 4

i i

=;;x x  ; ;r:1: ,

r-

{:n-
n. ;; .:2 1 ...;:

t'

t - ni .;. -t: ;j.

..;;n :  :.. .t. .t: qt: h t: 'l

i 3;.

ir~ $ [ 'I  !

i ,

.i. .:

' 4'. ,

I i.... u.

h) t

....d.....

- .. .. .t  ; h. y- g 1 l

._...;.._.. ..,C G {; f .g i .

. . .. g - ,

q

, . .p. ...- . rny=: f g; }3 g I I

N , i f, l

~ .

e

~

fh I {

. N b  !! q .

~n m.

o v.

. u ti d L

t.  :

m, o n .

h X .

h f 7 ,

l  ! .

. i ,

{ '. ,

I i

f

.: 2.Edu; f- f i\ .;  ; i T- EiiiE ,::i;  :

~!!

\. 1 .  :;: . :1:- .h '.:.

f;.

I

l. f  :-  :!-

N  %

.et .

-t

- t:

: .,1 m

...f' .$

6

+ ,.

.E

  • % -f- - -- { ; -M- ~{!

$ :j. ' . .: . :_.: qn  :

]:

N . + . e:q cr *

,E_

\ .

, .l .

3 p ' ' ' .. -

7 E

=! o -t.  ! ..

  • ! L .

e; CD - - -

-- i o CC

, - . , _h_

  • {

2 g l -

.n i

C

- . P4

  • j

~

e L  ;

  • T3  ! .  !. l.

x3 cn ' ' '

RI .

. f 1 m_ i i  !  ! ,

L4 ... ~ ', , t y g r+! Y. J h, .. % , _. . _ . _ _ _ . _

f~  !  ! .

, r_.

. i. l .

h . f l h I t Ij .-- -,! . I I

N

._ v.

_h j .j ,' -

%l.

t . .

u y . S. .- . . _q. -

,.g- 4_

' ' ' l =

7.._ _

ly .

. s i ..

- + - - - - - - - --

. _ . j g . _ . _ _ ._ .

l 5 p f -

t# trr s .

c4 e4 e b

4 8 S +h -

7 : : . : ..

-; .N- t  :..:;; :I:...

. : {:.r ..

_
:-  : :;:-- :m .,. . ..,_

.la 'l ..-t: -'N' 4:j-~ :iv .j-:-

. . ~ :!:- -t.

_.:!: :t:  ;: -

. .t.  ;;

.._.L. '

N ;Qj ,, ; -: .

- :-- - j 81 .  ! 6, ,

,4 .

p( 4 ;- ,

f

  • b

.: h ~

t. :

unh

.f.h :-*

.' :2: (,

j; e... ~..

e _

g _w ,

.. , s

'g i g.

\u l %. I

~WFfg'

~~

l

i 3

! l  ! s '

j f  :  % {uf {' '

l < - ,9 ,M )

l r. ..;

x, ,

i .

l

\; (

I- I  !

_.... - .p h  !

I '

{

+

-!' i  !:-- :r':ii5 ist! 'i~

~~i I:

to '

ui!P"

\ s -4 ei E]

1:~~EEiEs . c=  :=:=- $!:='.  : .: _

<  :; . - 1: 1 .

3..

..I . ' . I t .- ~:t:r-  %- t r l

f' '

fk .

! I k

'l:- :n. j y -

1:
A l'
q. - _
  • ]:. .

. -t' ,

.n-N; i

fi. - 2:.h__ 3jh I f; w

i

-4e q .

..,... ..y...-... ,

4 ,i 4 g

. j g 7,. . .

y

. 4

. . , l

! -l l t

, x

j. , S. N (f .G ~\Q

~

i .

4 ENS i iS 7

' g;

,N c  ;*

,e .

.l x

-t .O

NN o . .- .

m '

M i j go

-; * . t i

f b_\  ! .

i s E7 cn

-> c g;,_hg..g, i

+-

' { l G . .

n3 '

~. N h

j l

~5_ A. e. .

u  %:

Q s

LtJ  : ~':;-

O O t .,

[ ,- . _ _

I, ,

._ _. m . L_ .,_ _3 ,

l A i

I h I

s._ _e,, 4 4 en .

. :i 4. ! i, 4 ; _y4 _ . , ,A_ .4. , .. . ,

__q_ _

3 d_ 3l  !

.q_ _

m 9- i u

,

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20214R650&oldid=3242851"